JohnLW

"A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error. Footnote to Law 25A (Dec 2011)" Can the same interpretation be placed on an unintended lead? Example Declarer is running dummy's long Diamonds. He is about to lead the ten but out of his lips appear the words "ten of hearts" (which, unhappily, is also in Dummy). The gasps around the table (including from dummy) make him realise his 'slip of the tongue'. Assuming the Director is happy that the play was unintended can it be changed under 45C 4 b?

[hv=pc=n&s=s64hqj62da7532ca8&w=sk3hakt985dcqjt52&n=st9852h7dkt96c974&e=saqj7h43dqj84ck63]399|300[/hv] East declares in 3NT at pairs scoring. South leads 5th highest ♦ won by North with the King who returns the 10 covered by the Jack and ducked by South and East now plays two rounds of ♣ South is now on lead with the following cards remaining: [hv=pc=n&s=s64hqj62da75c&w=sk3hakt9dcqjt&n=st9852h7d96c9&e=saqj7h43dq8c3]399|300[/hv] At this point East claims the rest - having forgotton the ♦A is still out. How should the Director rule - (it can be assumed that Declarer will avoid blocking suits) Without the claim the only reasonable way of making a trick would be to lead the ♦A. With the claim their are other possibilities....

For quite some time when dummy in a No Trump contract I have chosen carefully which suit to put on my right (the trump position). I try not to put a suit that either declarer or myself have bid so that partner cannot mistake the suit there as trumps. I saw no problem as the order is not dictated in the laws. A couple of weeks ago an opponent told me that they always put the suit of the opening lead on the right. I thought that this must be illegal as it is giving an aide-memoir to declarer to which he is not entitled. My method is also an aide-memoir but it is a fact that declarer can ascertain at anytime throughout the play. Opinions on the legality of either of these methods would be appreciated.

Thanks to bluejak for finally 'hitting the nail on the head' with the point of the problem. Summarising - if the TD had acted correctly the meaning of the 1S would have been determined in his questioning. Thanks again

Sorry - English Bridge Union The other post makes the point of the TD supplying options. As both myself and my partner direct we were aware of our rights in this matter, however finding 'too late' that the bid was conventional was aggravating. I possibly thought that it was a 'rub of the green' situation as I was not disadvantaged by not knowing the meaning of the bid but just unable to take advantage of what I thought was AI but in fact was unintentional A-misI; but I'm still wondering.

RHO opens 1C. Whilst considering whether to overcall 1S my LHO bids 1S I bring things to n immediate halt by drawing attention. The Director asks my partner whether he wants to accept the bid - he doesn't and the auction reverts to me. Considering the 'bid' on my left I pass and LHO repeats the 1S which is now alerted and partner finds out that it shows 5 - 8 points!! I now wished I had bid. Should I have asked? (can I ask about a non-existant bid?) should it have been alerted when made the first time? Opinions please.